Special Standing Committee

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Adoption and Children Bill

Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. You may be aware that the knife came down viciously again at the end of our previous sitting, leaving 10 clauses completely undebated, and the debate on one only partly finished. We were completely unable to consider with the part of the review panel that deals with the adoption register, and many other important areas.
 This afternoon, we are starting on a completely different part of the Bill, for which the Government appear to be ill-equipped, given that many of their amendments are starred. Is there no way, within the terms of the programme resolution, that extra time could be given to those important parts of the Bill that we have had no opportunity to debate before we move to a part of the Bill on which the Government have performed a major U-turn at the 11th hour, so that they are not ready for their own amendments?

George Stevenson: Whether the Government are prepared to present their case to the satisfaction of a Committee of the House is entirely a matter for them. I am advised that there is no scope to reconsider the programme resolution, and therefore I must consider the matter closed.Clause 53 Information to be kept about a person's adoption

Clause 53 - Information to be kept about a person's adoption

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in 53, page 31, line 32, at beginning insert—
 'In relation to an adopted person'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 194 and 195.

Jacqui Smith: We move to the parts of the Bill that deal with access to information. Clause 53 introduces the access to information provisions, setting out the information that adoption agencies must keep and the regulation-making powers around transfer. It would perhaps be helpful if I were to set out the intention behind the clauses that relate to access to information and the amendments that we have tabled to them and, for the benefit of our discussions of these amendments and others, worth while to compare the new provisions with the current legislation.
 The Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 provide that an adoption agency may disclose information in its possession as it thinks fit for the purposes of 
 carrying out its functions as an agency. Adoption agencies may, for example, disclose information to an adopted person about his background, although guidance is that such information should not include the information recorded on his birth certificate, as provision for such disclosure is made separately in the Adoption Act 1976. Information about the adopted child's progress may be provided to birth parents. The guidance makes it clear that the child's new identity and whereabouts should not be disclosed. 
 The adoption agency regulations give adoption agencies wide discretion, but practice is varied and inconsistent. Often, the provisions work well, but in some cases they do not. Agencies have passed on sensitive identifying information without consulting the person who would be identified. People involved in adoption, including children and birth relatives, have been traced and contacted against their wishes. That may be disturbing and could disrupt the adoptive placement; in a small number cases, there is a risk of physical harm. 
 Access to information in the context of adoption is a sensitive matter. Nowadays, many adoptions include some element of contact between the adoptive and the birth families—often involving an exchange of information about the child's progress through letterbox contact, but in some cases the two families may meet. The majority of adopted children are adopted after infancy and know that their birth families have information about them. However, in some circumstances it may not be appropriate to share identifying information, especially if a placement could be disrupted or the child's welfare affected. 
 The measures in the Bill that provide for safeguards on the disclosure of identifying information are intended to balance the interests of all parties. Striking the right balance has been difficult. Information that identifies people is potentially sensitive; we need to consider how to safeguard it in some circumstances and how to provide access to it in others. We have tried to ensure that the system is fair and balanced and that it provides some flexibility. 
 We set out to develop the provisions with the following aims in mind. We want to ensure consistency of adopted people's access to information about the background to their adoption, which is a commitment the Government made in the adoption White Paper. When identifying information might be provided, we aim to give every individual involved in a person's adoption a right to express his or her wishes. We want to give adoption agencies some discretion, supported by guidance, to determine whether to withhold or disclose identifying information. We want also to balance an agency's exercise of discretion by providing a right for an independent review of its adoption determination. 
 The Government made it clear when introducing the Bill in October that the access to information provisions were new; we also outlined the fact in our memorandum of evidence to the Committee's evidence sittings. Continuing our consultative approach to the Bill, we also made it clear that we would welcome views on whether we had struck the 
 right balance. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] Opposition Members mock the notion that Governments might consult and listen to people. That may have not have happened during the 18 years of Conservative Government, but it is what the Labour Government are doing.

Tim Loughton: If the Minister is so proud of her record on consultation, why did it take a month from the pre-scrutiny witness sittings, at which every witness threw up their hands in horror and every document presented in evidence expressed horror at the changes that the Government were suggesting? It took the Minister until the 11th hour on Thursday—her very last opportunity—to table the amendments. She did not have the courtesy to tell the Committee that she was doing it, let alone inform those members of the Committee who had tabled their own amendments to the same effect.

Jacqui Smith: As I have said, this is a complicated area of policy. It is right that the Government took the time to reflect on the evidence taken in the evidence sittings; we wanted to ensure that we got it right. I wrote to all members of the Committee last Thursday afternoon outlining the proposals that the Government intended to bring forward. I made our intentions clear. I thought that that was appropriate. According to the programme motion, we have at least three sittings to discuss the matter, so I feel sure that hon. Members will have ample opportunity to probe the Government on their amendments and to table their own.

Robert Walter: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that the amendments are the result of the Government's desire to consult. However, when the Bill was presented the Government said that its original provisions were there because of the danger that those who had been adopted might go back and be violent toward or attack their birth parents. Will she explain which consultation exercise led her to believe that that was a danger?

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware if he has read my letter and looked carefully at the amendments, the Government still consider that it might be appropriate, in a small number of cases, for adoption agencies to exercise discretion over the release of information that will enable people to access their birth records, although we have made a significant change in the proposals.
 Although I accept that there was disagreement at the evidence-gathering sittings about the Government's approach to birth records, some of the evidence given then, and subsequently, suggested concern about such disclosure. The Government have changed their position in the light of representations under the Special Standing Committee procedure. We could have decided just to convene—dare I say it—a bog standard Standing Committee. However, we did not; we took evidence and we acted on that evidence.

Tim Loughton: The Minister has referred to evidence that backs up the Government's decision to amend the Bill. First, will she tell us what that evidence is? We were not made aware of it by any witness during the evidence-gathering sittings. Secondly, will she tell us exactly when the Government changed their mind, given that last Thursday morning her Department was busy briefing Radio 4's ''Woman's Hour'' that there would be no changes and telling that programme why the Bill had to stay in its original form? When did that damascene conversion happen?

Jacqui Smith: The idea that it is appropriate for a Government Department to brief a news programme about a proposal before it presents it to Parliament is rich coming from the Opposition.

Hilton Dawson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would note that although Opposition Members constantly bleat about lack of time, when they do have some time, they waste it on fatuous arguments. Will she accept my sincere congratulations, as someone who raised serious objections to these clauses at the very welcome evidence sittings, on having listened to the evidence that was presented to her and making the appropriate changes? Perhaps we can now move on to the serious business.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman takes the words out of my mouth. Since I have been in the Chair, I have heard no fatuous contributions from any hon. Member on this Committee, for which I am eternally grateful. Can we now return to the terms of the Government amendments?

Jacqui Smith: I was describing how the amendments relate to clause 53, which provides the basis for the Government's approach to all the information provisions that we shall discuss.
 The adoption stakeholders were concerned principally with the proposed restriction on the adopted person's right of access to his birth records. Some also commented on the need for prospective adopters to have better and fuller information on the child whom the agency proposed to place with them. Clauses 53 to 62 provide for the adoption agency to be the single gateway for access to identifying information, including birth records. The Registrar-General retains his duty to record and keep the adopted person's birth records under clauses 74 to 78. The Registrar-General will, of course, retain his duty under the Adoption Act 1976 to maintain the registers. 
 The Government believe that the adoption agency is best placed to provide identifying information, to contact the interested parties, to deal appropriately with such sensitive information and to arrange for the provision of counselling. The evidence that we heard broadly supported that view. That model is an improvement on the current situation, whereby access to the birth records of the adopted person is obtained through the Registrar-General without any involvement from the adoption agency. In addressing the issue of access to birth records, we have carefully 
 considered the representations made to the Committee and how to address the significant concerns that have been expressed. 
 Under the current legislative framework, the adopted adult has a right—provided by section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976—to obtain information from the Registrar-General that enables him to access a copy of his birth certificate, which identifies his birth parents and their address at the time of his birth. The only exception to that is when the Registrar-General decides that it is appropriate to withhold the information on public policy grounds. In such cases, the adopted person can challenge the Registrar-General's decision by recourse to the High Court. 
 Committee members know that we have been concerned about the small number of cases in which access to birth records might pose a significant risk to the birth parents. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked me about evidence given at the evidence-gathering sitting. I refer him to an amendment to the evidence that was given to us on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services, in the name of Rob Hutchinson, the chair of the ADSS children and families committee. He said: 
 ''The principle of openness is now well established in adoption practice. The Association of Directors of Social Services recognises that adopted adults greatly value their right to obtain their original birth certificate and believes that this right should be preserved. However, some concerns remain about the small minority of cases where individuals involved may be placed at some risk.'' 
We believe that our new proposals balance that very small number of cases with the need for people to be able to gain access to, and copies of, their birth certificates. We have listened carefully and have weighed the evidence now available to us. As a consequence, we have decided that adopted people should retain the right to access the information that they need to enable them to obtain copies of their birth certificates, and we propose to amend clause 58 to provide for that. 
 We intend broadly to mirror the current legal position, although the route of access will now be through the adoption agency. When an adopted person aged 18 makes a request, he will be able to obtain the information that he needs from his adoption agency in order to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. The only exception will be in those cases where the adoption agency considers that exceptional circumstances justify recourse to the courts to withhold information.

Hilton Dawson: I recognise and welcome all that my hon. Friend is saying about the role of adoption agencies. Can she confirm that those adults, however unwise others might think them, who wish to have access to their birth records without any counselling process, will be able to make application through the adoption agency, without being subjected to unwelcome social work intervention?

Jacqui Smith: Although we have made provision for the single gateway to be through the adoption agency, that does not imply a necessity to receive counselling through that agency. In such circumstances as the adoption agency considers justify the withholding of information, the adoption agency will need to seek the permission of the High Court not to disclose that information. The High Court will make an order only if it is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. I hope that that change will allay the concerns that have been expressed and will, in the cases in which a court gives its consent for information to be withheld, provide a safeguard.
 As for other identifying information about the birth parents and others, we now propose that all adults involved in a person's adoption should be treated in the same way. The provisions in the Bill were based on our aim to give all such people a right to express their wishes about the sensitive information that identifies them. However, that was complicated by the need to provide for birth parents to be able to object to the release of their information while others were asked for their consent. That distinction was based on the presumption that that information about the birth parents would be released unless they exercised a right of veto. As we now propose to retain the right of the adopted person to access his birth records, we consider that the adoption agency should ask the birth parents for their consent to the release of identifying information held by the agency—but not in the case of the birth records information. That mirrors our intentions with respect to the disclosure of identifying information about everybody else involved in a person's adoption. 
 Under our proposals, a person would be able to ask the adoption agency to provide identifying information about anyone involved in an adoption. Where they decided to proceed to process such an application, adoption agencies would be required to take reasonable steps to seek the views of the person who would be identified, including establishing whether they consent. If their consent were forthcoming, we would expect the information to be disclosed, unless the agency felt that it was not appropriate to do so. Where consent was refused or could not be obtained, the agency would be allowed to disclose the information if it were safe and appropriate to do so.

Kevin Brennan: I would like to return to the matter of releasing identifying information on behalf of the adoptive person. Will the Minister confirm that she would not anticipate that adoption agencies would feel in any way compelled under the clauses, when an adopted person was seeking identifying information, to contact the birth parent to seek permission in order to protect themselves against the fact that they have not gone to the High Court? Would she anticipate that in the majority of cases there would be no need for an adoption agency, when approached by an adopted person, to contact the birth parent before releasing the identifying information?

Jacqui Smith: The provision relating to the High Court deals with the provision of information necessary to gain access to the birth record. It would not be necessary to contact the birth parent in such cases. I was moving on to other identifying information. There is now a distinction between those two categories.
 The other area about which concern was expressed in evidence-gathering was that of the quality and range of information about the child that is made available to prospective adopters. Doubts were expressed about the way in which the Bill provides for that. In particular, there were concerns that information needed to inform prospective adopters prior to agreeing to a proposed match might be held back until the time of the adoption order. 
 It has always been the Government's intention to use the Bill's provisions to ensure that prospective adopters receive full and appropriate information in advance of the adoption order. In the light of the concerns expressed, we have tabled a new clause to provide for the disclosure of information during the adoption process. To ensure that the means used to achieve our aims allow for some flexibility should the process of providing information to adopters need to be improved in the future, the clause provides an enabling power through regulations to require adoption agencies to release certain information to prospective adopters at three key stages.

Jonathan Djanogly: This morning, we were talking about rights of appeal to a panel, and one of the matters we discussed was the release of information. That is one of the areas in which the Government have acknowledged that they will be giving rights of appeal to the panel. That being the case, has the Minister thought about the timing of people's ability to appeal to the panel? In other words, if an adoption agency is considering releasing information, at what point would someone be able to exercise the right of appeal that the Government have said they will grant under clause 12? Will the Minister please explain how that mechanism will work?

Jacqui Smith: The review mechanism might be used in a complicated range of ways. For example, if an adult had approached an adoption agency and that agency had sought consent from the person for about whom information was being sought and had gained that consent, but then for some exceptional reason decided not to provide the information to the person who had requested it, that person could then resort to the independent review mechanism.
 Alternatively, if the person being asked for their consent had failed to give it, but the adoption agency still believed—we are providing for discretion—that the circumstances were such that the information should be made available to the person who had asked for it, that would be another opportunity for an appeal to the independent review mechanism. 
 I talked about prospective adopters, and outlined the fact that we will discuss a new clause that will enable us to set regulations to state the information that should be released to prospective adopters at three 
 key stages. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss packages of information as we discuss the new clause. As I informed the Committee in my letter, our amendments also ensure that the adopted adult can access the information that his adopters receive, if he wants to. 
 Striking the right balance in the provisions has been difficult. Information that identifies people can be sensitive, and although many adoptions include some contact between the adoptive family and the birth family, in some circumstances it is not appropriate to share identifying information, especially when the adopted child's welfare is at risk. The amendments reflect understandable concerns and provide for the creation of a fair and balanced system for access to sensitive identifying information on someone's adoption. 
 Under current regulations, an adoption agency must keep indexes to all its case records, including those that detail the making of an adoption order, for at least 75 years. All other records must be held for as long as the agency considers it appropriate. All the records must be kept in a place of special security. We know that practice varies greatly. Some agencies keep only patchy records, while others have lost or disposed of information for past adoptions. 
 The adoption White Paper pledged that the Government would provide people with a consistent system for access to information about their history. The provisions enable regulations to be made to prescribe the information that an adoption agency must keep in relation to someone's adoption, the form that it should take and the way in which it should be kept. The provision also enables the making of regulations that govern the transfer of information between adoption agencies. 
 The amendments will make the group of clauses apply to information about an adopted person, rather than to information that an agency must keep in relation to a person's adoption. That ensures that we can regulate all the necessary information under the clauses, as I have spelled out. It makes it clear that the group of clauses relates to a scheme for the disclosure of identifying information once an adoption order has been made. The information will be about the adopted person, his birth parents, his adoptive parents and any other person involved in his adoption, such as the adopted person's siblings, grandparents or the social worker. 
 The amendments will enable us to set out regulations that apply to the information to be kept, and that govern the transfer of information when, for example, one agency is to cease and it is essential that its records pass into the safekeeping of another agency. In such cases, regulations provide a better and more flexible legislative means of detailing the responsibilities that we intend to place on adoption agencies for keeping information in relation to a person's adoption, its form and the way in which it is kept. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee. 
Several hon. Members rose—

George Stevenson: Order. Before we proceed, I should say that the Clerk and I have had further consultations. I want to add to my response to the point of order made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. As I said, there is no mechanism under the terms of the programme motion by which more time could be given to consider the business dealt with this morning. It remains open to Committees to amend programme motions, but that first requires a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. No such meeting has been requested.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Stevenson. No doubt, a letter requesting such a meeting will be in the post shortly.
 In response to the Minister, I expect that that is probably the longest scripted U-turn that any Committee has heard for a long time—a U-turn that contained no hint of contrition or mea culpa—from a Minister who, a week ago, said that the Bill was perfect and did not require any amendment. Now, at last, we see its flaws. We welcome the amendments. We would have welcomed them four weeks ago, as would scores of adoption agencies and other voluntary bodies with an interest in the Bill. The Minister is well aware of the comments that were made in representations to the Committee, to which we were all privy. 
 The south-east post-adoption network said: 
 ''The proposed legislation is a retrograde step that is likely to cause harm to the psychological wellbeing of adopted individuals.'' 
The National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents said: 
 ''We are utterly incredulous by the manner in which changes have been made and appalled by what is placed before you purporting to be an appropriate response for at least the next 30 years.'' 
The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering said: 
 ''It would not be putting it too strongly to say that there is consternation among BAAF's member agencies and others at this proposed change.'' 
The representative of the Fostering Network said: 
 ''I think that this is such a draconian proposal.'' 
All that evidence was available to the Committee five weeks ago. Why has it taken the Minister five weeks to come up with this U-turn? Worse still, why does she constantly refer to this great letter? To turn into some sort of triumph simply returning to the status quo that has existed for the past 25 years and worked perfectly satisfactorily—she has not been able to cite a single case where it has not worked— shows incredible brass neck.

Jonathan R Shaw: Has not my hon. Friend the Minister stolen the hon. Gentleman's thunder? The speech that we have just heard is one that the hon. Gentleman was hoping to deliver in the event that there were no Government amendments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I was unhappy with the Bill and welcome the changes. My hon. Friend the Minister has not presented the changes in a fanfare
 of glory. The Government have listened and introduced changes and the hon. Gentleman is clearly disappointed with that.

Tim Loughton: I am not at all disappointed about what has happened. I am disappointed at the discourtesy shown by the Minister to the Committee and all the voluntary organisations—

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: Let me first respond to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). If other hon. Members were seriously unhappy with the Bill, they should have had the independence of mind to table their own amendments five weeks ago, or at least to put their names to our amendments. As we all know, this is not a party-political Bill because it received the support of all parties on Second Reading.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: One at a time.
 In the spirit of co-operation, we have sought at all stages to improve the Bill, which is why we welcomed the pre-scrutiny witness sessions. At those sessions, the evidence was so categorically weighted in one direction that we immediately tabled our amendments to reverse this misguided part of the Bill, as the Government have done at last.

Hilton Dawson: I have a couple of points. First, does the hon. Gentleman really think that his approach is a good way to ensure that the Government will do what he wants them to do, because it seems to me to be tactically inept? Secondly, in all his concern for the adoption agencies, voluntary organisations and people who have been caught up in this issue, does he not understand that those people would have more respect for the process if he simply welcomed the legislation and allowed us to get on to the meat of the debate?

Tim Loughton: Everyone would have much more respect for the process if the Minister had responded favourably and positively at an early stage. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that today represents the first opportunity to discuss clauses 53 to 62, which deal with access to information. That would have been the most contentious part of the Bill if it had not been changed. The last day for tabling amendments to this part of the Bill came at the end of last week and, because it was a non-sitting Friday, the amendments were not published until Monday.

Jacqui Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I shall in a minute.
 Unless hon. Members had had a conversation with the Minister, they would not have been able to see those amendments or respond to them with their own amendments until Monday, which would have been too late for this afternoon's debate.

Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is why I wrote to hon. Members on Thursday afternoon?

Tim Loughton: The Minister wrote her famous letter to us after the Committee rose on Thursday afternoon and the letter was available in Members' pigeonholes after the Committee adjourned on Thursday afternoon. I believe, however, that it was available earlier to Labour Members.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman should check his pigeonhole.

Tim Loughton: We could either sit in Committee between half past two and five o'clock to debate clauses and amendments and challenge the Minister, as we should be doing, or we could nip downstairs every five minutes in the hope that the Minister had changed her mind at the last moment and that there might be a letter in our pigeonhole. What nonsense! We sat opposite each other the whole day, but the Minister gave no indication whatever that the Government had had a change of heart. That would have given all hon. Members the opportunity to see the amendments, which are not contained in the letter, as it is merely a general statement about what they intended to do—although they have not even done that in respect of clause 57, for example. Opposition Members would have had the opportunity to see whether the amendments fell in line with what we sought, and been able to table our amendments in reply. We have not had that opportunity and it is a gross discourtesy to the workings of the Committee.

Robert Walter: My I help my hon. Friend? I was observing the Committee diligently and I think that letters were distributed personally to Labour Members that afternoon, while our letters were left in our pigeonholes.

George Stevenson: Order. It is perfectly in order that hon. Members should examine why the Government tabled the amendments and the circumstances that led to that. I shall be calling a clause stand part debate. When hon. Members have made their points, can we return at the earliest opportunity to debating the amendments?

Tim Loughton: Of course, I am happy to do that, Mr. Stevenson.
 The Minister's opening remarks on the amendments gave us a wide background to what brought about the Damascene conversion, but she has yet to give the reason why the conversion happened at such a late stage. It would be useful to hear what the criteria were. 
 I said at the outset that these are the amendments that we have sought for the past five weeks. They contain some of the amendments that we tabled. For the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford to say that we must be disappointed is to misunderstand what we are trying to do in the Committee. If we had voted against the Bill in its entirety and opposed it on principle all the way through, he might have had a point. Our task, however, has been to improve the Bill and to remove from the present group of clauses some draconian measures—as they were described—that would have set back the adoption process by 25 years.

Elfyn Llwyd: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, because the amendments that I have heard being debated have been constructive and were meant to improve the Bill. There have been no wrecking amendments. In previous Standing Committees of which I have been a member, if the Government were minded to amend the Bill, the Minister gave a draft to Opposition Members, which resulted in open discussion. That is the way forward if we are serious about the Bill.

Tim Loughton: That is absolutely right and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have served on Standing Committees that have been debating issues of significance, particularly complicated, technical and legal matters, when the Minister has had the courtesy to write in advance of amendments being tabled giving a full explanation and producing additional explanatory notes to explain the Government's thinking.
 The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford talks about wrecking amendments, but everything has been in order—otherwise you, Mr. Stevenson, or your co-Chairman, Mrs. Roe, would have ruled them out of order. 
Kevin Brennan rose—

Tim Loughton: I will give way in a moment. Labour Members seem very excited this afternoon. Perhaps they have been briefed to be excited and animated. The only wrecking amendment on the amendment paper this afternoon would appear to be a Government amendment to clause 57. It is so incompetently out of order—it would delete the whole clause—that it has not been selected. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford should stop throwing stones at people in glasshouses.

Kevin Brennan: I do not want to take the Committee's time, but the hon. Gentleman claimed that the Minister had said that it was a perfect Bill and that it did not need to be changed. Later, he said that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford had accused the Opposition of tabling wrecking amendments. I have listened carefully to the Committee's proceedings and I heard neither of those remarks. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has to make his mark, but we are not here so that he can engage in political point-scoring for a starring spot on ''Woman's Hour''.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we here to do. The producers of ''Woman's Hour'' will be even less amused by his comments than they were by the way in which the Department of Health treated them last week. However, that is aside from the issues that we are debating.

Julian Brazier: I do not want tempt your patience, Mr. Stevenson, but it should be placed on record that adoption is a subject on which ''Woman's Hour'' has taken a considerable interest. It has had several programmes on the subject and I have been privileged to take part in a couple of them.

George Stevenson: Order. I attempted earlier to guide the Committee gently. The last thing that I want to do is to intervene too often. That is not why I am here. However, a debate on the content of ''Woman's Hour'' seems to be far wide of the amendment.

Tim Loughton: You are obviously not a devotee of ''Woman's Hour'', Mr. Stevenson—

George Stevenson: Order. I would not want that remark to remain on the record, nor would the hon. Gentleman.

Tim Loughton: I apologise, Mr Stevenson. I return to the point in hand. Opposition Members have no objection to the amendments—[Interruption.] Government Members treat the Committee as though everything should be rubber-stamped and think that we have a cheek to raise objections. Our objection is that we saw the Government amendments only yesterday, by which time it was too late for us to table amendments to those proposed changes. That is not a good way to run a Standing Committee. It is particularly bad when the Committee has not had the opportunity to debate more than one fifth of the Bill because of the draconian programme motion. That is the truth of it.
 We will support the amendments, but we would like more explanation about further the amendments resulting from the Government's change of heart. However, the Government have a duty to all members of the Committee to explain any further changes in plenty of time.

Henry Bellingham: I also welcome the amendments, which the Minister should be congratulated on tabling. It is disappointing that Opposition Members were not afforded the same privilege as Labour Back Benchers last week and it would have been courteous to treat us identically by giving us advance warning. However, one must give credit where credit is due because the Government have listened and learned from the debate. Several Labour Back Benchers should be congratulated on having had the courage to stand up to the thugs and bully boys in the Labour's Whips Office—the same ones who intimidated the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), pinned him up against a wall and frightened him.

George Stevenson: Order. My patience is running out a little, and I am sure that hon. Members will understand why. I urge the hon. Gentleman to return to the terms of the amendments.

Henry Bellingham: It is difficult to return to the terms of the amendment without putting them in the correct context and I am sure that you will sympathise, Mr. Stevenson.

George Stevenson: Order. I am jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box, which I did not want to do. I have no problem with hon. Members debating amendments in context, but the hon. Gentleman should return to the wording of the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: Indeed. I welcome the amendments. The Minister may genuinely have thought that she could push the Bill through as it stood, but let us give her the benefit of the doubt and suggest that she took her time to introduce the changes because she wanted to get the wording absolutely right. As a result, there were discussions in her Department and experts were brought in, in an effort to draft everything in the most perfect order.
 None the less, I welcome the amendments and pay tribute to Labour Back Benchers who had the courage to stand firm. A rebellion was brewing and the Government would have lost their provisions had they not made concessions. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 194, in page 31, line 33, leave out 'a person's' and insert 'his'. 
 No. 195, in page 31, line 37, leave out from 'information' to 'is' in line 38 and insert 
'kept by an adoption agency by virtue of subsection (1)(a)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 31, line 41, at end add—
 '(4) All records and other relevant information must be securely held by the relevant adoption agency on a permanent basis; furthermore, all such information must be passed on to any successor agency.'.
 The Minister mentioned records and the secure holding of relevant information. However, I am not clear from her comments whether there will be an obligation on adoption agencies to keep records permanently and to ensure that information is passed on to any successor agency. Will she clarify that aspect of her earlier remarks? If there is an element of doubt, I humbly suggest that a simple way forward would be for the Government to accept the amendment to make it crystal clear that the relevant information must be securely held. 
 Different agencies are involved in the adoption process. Local authorities will have systems in place to ensure that records are properly stored and logged. Although other agencies may be good at their jobs, they may lack record-keeping facilities, attention to detail and access to the resources needed to ensure that the right systems are in place. They may have completely different standards of information storage and retrieval and it is essential that we include in the Bill a requirement that information be securely held. 
 It is equally vital that information is passed on to a successor agency, as we discussed a fortnight or so ago in relation to a later clause. When debating Bills, one has the problem of dealing with some clauses before others, which sometimes leads to confusion. I know that there is a reason for it, as was mentioned during the debate on programming. 
 I want the Minister to consider my amendment carefully. It would tidy up the relevant aspect of the clause.

Jonathan Djanogly: I support the amendment. Will the Minister suggest what the security arrangements are for holding the records? Presumably, thousands of
 adoption records are held in locations around the country. Have the Government taken an interest in the subject before, or should it be of more concern than we have heard to date?
 Although the amendment refers to adoption agencies holding information ''on a permanent basis'', my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will be aware that such agencies sometimes close down. Several have in recent years. In such cases, what happens to the records? In the past, they have been lost. Sometimes they have not been handed to the new agency as they should have been. What security measures are there? Might lost records have found their way into the wrong hands? I would be grateful to hear the Minister's views on the important questions that surround the amendment.

Jacqui Smith: I shall respond first to the points made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). In my introduction to the previous amendment, I spelled out the fact that adoption records should be kept in a place of special security under current regulations. There is no detail as to what such a place should be, however. The hon. Gentleman suggested that information might reach the wrong hands, but no evidence suggests that that is the case and that adoption agencies do not hold information securely. The clause will enable us to make regulations to cover the nature of information that adoption agencies need to keep and the way in which they should keep it. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned transfer.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is it intended that such records could be sent using electronic communication? Clearly, that could give rise to a new series of security problems?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a salient point, and one in support of stating the details in regulations as opposed to in the Bill. It is likely that the way in which information will be held and transferred will change with technology. Regulations enable a more flexible approach to ensure that safeguards remain as changes happen.
 Clause 53 allows regulations to be made that govern the transfer of information between adoption agencies when, for example, one agency is to cease operation and it is essential that its records pass into the safe keeping of another. If a registered adoption society were to cease operation, the local authority in the area where the society was based would be responsible for safeguarding the information. That will reflect the present position under regulations, except that when now the Secretary of State is notified of the transfer of records, in future it will be the National Care Standards Commission. Hon. Gentlemen may recall our discussions under clause 6 and 7 last week about the ceasing of an adoption agency, the safeguards that need to be put in place, and the role of local authorities in relation to inactive and defunct adoption agencies. 
 I have outlined why we believe that regulations provide a better and more flexible legislative means to detail the responsibilities that we intend to place on 
 adoption agencies. We intend to consult key stakeholders, including adoption agencies, on the regulations, which we will ensure are based on best practice. The consultation will also enable us to set, through regulations, the prescribed periods for which records should be held. I remind hon. Members that they are currently held for 75 years. 
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk contains a contradiction. It requires that the agency hold the records permanently, but that it should pass them on to any successor agency.

Henry Bellingham: The idea of holding records permanently is self-explanatory. If an organisation closes down, by definition it cannot continue to hold records permanently, so it hands them on to a successor body. That is the point inherent in the amendment. It is slightly unfair of the Minister to pick holes in it.

Jacqui Smith: Heaven forbid that I should be unfair. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point.

Jonathan Djanogly: My intervention is on that same point, so I think that the Minister had better hear both before replying. The amendment does not use only the word ''permanent'', but reads, ''on a permanent basis''. That means as though the basis were permanent, not permanent itself.
Jacqui Smith rose—

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?

George Stevenson: Order. The Minister is replying to an intervention.

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that all hon. Members would want to avoid giving legal experts the opportunity to argue about whether permanence is in conflict with the necessity to transfer records from one agency to another. That is why it is important that, in the regulations, we can state more clearly and flexibly the provisions that need to be made for the long term.

Elfyn Llwyd: I can give an objective view of the wording. The words ''on a permanent basis'' mean while the agency exists. If it ceases to exist, the information has to be passed on to a successor agency. That is a belt-and-braces provision. There is nothing wrong with it and no conflict arises from it.

Jacqui Smith: There is disagreement as to whether the amendment produces a conflict. I do not think that the disagreement is helpful, especially as I hope that I have already reassured the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that his points about the need to maintain records and transfer them appropriately will be properly covered in regulation, following consultation that will enable us to consider the details. I cannot promise that the consultation will enable us to have an in-depth consideration of the nature of ''on a permanent basis'', as opposed to ''permanent'' or any other wording that hon. Gentlemen might devise. On
 the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: We do not know what the regulations will contain. We have the Minister's word that they will include provisions to ensure that what I want to achieve is secured. The regulations will be debatable, in theory, but regulations are debated only rarely, as the Committee knows only too well. The pressure of work in this House is such that it is difficult for hon. Members to secure a proper debate on regulations that are laid before the House. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, my amendment takes a belt-and-braces approach. It is straightforward and simple and it is churlish of the Minister to turn it down, because it is in no sense a trap with respect to what she is trying to do. I am sure that she is 100 per cent. genuine in her account of her aims and that the regulations will be brought forward. The amendment will complement those and I see no harm in her accepting it.

Jacqui Smith: As we are going into the detail of the wording of the amendment, may I ask whether there is a danger that it can be interpreted to mean both that all records and other relevant information must be securely held by the relevant adoption agency on a permanent basis and, in addition, that equivalent records must be transferred to a new adoption agency? That is another potential difficulty.

Henry Bellingham: I do not accept that. However, we are now dealing with important provisions and the Minister has made important concessions today. Being kind hearted, I shall accept her word that the documents, records and other relevant information will be properly stored for 75 years. It would be futile to press the amendment to a vote because too many Labour Members would blindly support the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Restrictions on disclosure of protected etc. information

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 32, line 6, at end insert—
 '(1A) Any information kept by an adoption agency—
(a) which is necessary to enable the adopted person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth, or
(b) which is information about an entry relating to the adopted person in the Adoption Contact Register,
may only be disclosed to a person by the agency in pursuance of this group of sections'.

George Stevenson: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 197 to 200, 206 and 209.

Jacqui Smith: We have a goodly chunk here.

Tim Loughton: Is that the technical term?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, I believe it is.
 The amendments will help to bring about our revised approach to access to birth records. They will change the definition of protected information under the Bill to include the information necessary for an adopted person to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. Previously, the Bill referred to that information as section 76 information and dealt with its disclosure separately from other identifying information held by adoption agencies. As I explained earlier, the Government attended to what was said in the evidence hearings and have decided to continue to provide, through the adoption agency, for an automatic right for adopted people to receive the information necessary to gain access to their birth records—that will be provided through the adoption agency. That provision is to be brought about through changes to clauses 54 and 58. 
 Amendment No. 196 covers the information needed to gain access to the birth record. It ensures, by way of inserting new subsection (1A), that that will become protected information under clause 54. The rest of the amendments are consequential and delete references to section 76 information. The result is that the adoption agency may disclose the information needed to obtain the birth record only under the arrangement set out in the clauses. Later amendments to clause 58 provide that the agency must disclose the information needed to access the birth record on request to an adopted person once they reach the age of 18, unless the agency seeks a High Court order blocking that release. The amendment also extends the definition of protected information to include any information that the adoption agency may have from the adoption contact register. Any such information may be released only under the arrangements set out by the provisions. 
 Amendment No. 200 makes consequential amendments to omit the reference in clause 55 to section 76 information. Amendment No. 206 amends clause 58(4) to leave out section 76 information and amendment No. 209 is a consequential amendment to clause 61(6) omitting the reference to clause 59, which is to be omitted to achieve the Government's intentions. The amendments enable us to omit the distinction between the section 76 information and the information that we are now considering and to deliver on our new approach on access to birth records and the disclosure of other information. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Tim Loughton: Again, we welcome the amendments and what the Minister has just referred to as the Government's new approach—actually, we are reverting to what happened 25 years ago. The amendments should achieve what the Minister tells us they will and what the Opposition wanted all along. They should be known as the, ''rest in peace clause 76 group'', because they have certainly put paid to everything that that clause was designed to achieve. In the interests of pushing the Committee along speedily,
 as I know that the Government would like us to finish this evening, I should say that we have no objection to the amendments.

Henry Bellingham: I have a small point to ask the Minister, because she has confused me. I welcome the bulk of what she has just said, but amendment No. 209 amends clause 61 and I do not understand why it must be discussed under clause 54. Will she explain that? If we are able to discuss amendment No. 209, will the Minister tell the Committee something about the payment of fees in respect of disclosure, in the prescribed circumstances, of the relevant information? Who will set those fees, and will there be an upper limit for them?

Jacqui Smith: Although we now appear to be proceeding in a spirit of co-operation and general welcoming of the Government's approach, I would like to correct the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that we are simply reverting to the status quo. As I spelled out at the beginning, we are proposing a new single gateway for access to information through adoption agencies, including the information necessary to access a birth record. That was supported by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering in their evidence. Felicity Collier said
 ''We support the fact that . . . access to birth records should be through adoption agencies''.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 20 November 2001; c. 67.] 
The ADSS evidence to which I referred earlier also backed that change. Stakeholders have recognised the need to modernise and improve the system. We are not simply reverting to the old system. As I said in my introduction, there are now new issues about data protection and human rights in relation to access to information and it is important that the Bill considers them in relation to not only the disclosure of birth records information but the disclosure of other identifying information to adults. 
 The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked about amendment No. 209. In my rush to help the Committee, I did not properly outline what the amendment does. It would omit the reference to clause 59 in clause 61. Because we propose to delete clause 59, it is a consequential amendment. It also covers the disclosure of non-birth record identifying information that the Bill terms ''protected''. 
 As I explained earlier, in light of our change of approach on birth records, we have tabled amendments making new provision for the disclosure of protected information by adoption agencies to ensure that the disclosure of that information is handled in a sensitive manner that ensures that the views of those to be identified are taken into account. For that reason, and because the new clause spells out that new approach, clause 59 will no longer be necessary.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister has not answered my question. I asked why Government amendment No. 209 is not being discussed under clause 61, the clause
 to which it refers—unless I am very dim and did not understand what she said. It is part of a group of amendments to clause 54, but if it is indeed relevant only to clause 61 we should be discussing it then, because I cannot ask questions on clause 61 now.

George Stevenson: The amendment is grouped under this clause because it is relevant. The decision will be taken when we come to the clause in question.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 197, in page 32, line 8, after '(1)' insert 'or (1A)'. 
 No. 198, in page 32, line 13, leave out subsections (4) and (5). 
 No. 199, in page 32, line 18, leave out 'or section 76 information'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in page 32, line 20, at end add—
 '(7) Nothing in this Act shall permit local authorities to provide birth parents with information relating to an adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years or more and, prior to attaining the age of 18 years, other than pursuant to an order made pursuant to section 25.'.
 I tabled amendments Nos. 189, 190 and 191 together. I was advised by the Public Bill Office, whose staff know a lot more about drafting legislation than I do, that they could not be debated together because they apply to different clauses, so I start with the amendment on birth parent access. 
 I should also like to add that I am not sure what the Government's position is on this issue. Two minutes before I rose to speak, I noticed Government new clause 7. It looks as if the new clause deals with birth parents' access to information, but I am sure that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. New clause 7 is starred, which means that it must have been tabled some time yesterday. That timing is unacceptable—even more unacceptable than the previous group of amendments, which were at least tabled last Friday and were, therefore, not starred. I believe that I am right in saying that the effect of the new clause being starred is that the Committee will not be able to discuss it today because it was not tabled in time, so the situation goes from bad to worse. That is a shame because it relates to an important issue, which to many people is also emotive. 
 From my brief consideration of new clause 7, which presumably we shall discuss later—perhaps when we reach the end of the Bill—it seems to me that the Government are introducing the same sort of provisions for parental access as they have introduced on a child's access to information, in so far as the new clause contains a consent provision. If I am incorrect about that, I would appreciate some further explanation from the Minister. 
 Access for natural birth parents is conceptually different from access for children, in so far as the adoption decision is that of the natural parent and not that of the child. In practice, that is not relevant to adoption on a day-to-day basis in this day and age and has not been for some time, progressively since the 
 1975 legislation, and it is unlikely to become any more relevant to future adoptions. It is now rare for children not to know who their parents are. The number of babies who are adopted has decreased dramatically and most young people have some connection with their parents. Increasingly, the adoption process is becoming an open adoption system, whereby contact provisions are made. Indeed, the Bill takes that process further with the contact provisions contained in clause 25. It is a great shame that we have not had the chance to debate clause 25, as I have received almost as much correspondence on that clause as on any other issue. We were unable to discuss it because of the timetable, which shows the deficiency of the system. 
 If no contact is given—presumably because of abuse or where the child may be endangered—the local authority should not then give information to the birth parent once the child has reached 18. Furthermore, in the case of pre-1975 legislation adoptions, where the children involved would all now be over 18, the assumption is that no contact orders will be made. There was not a system for contact orders then and it was not the culture of the time. That culture is an important consideration in relation to pre-1975 adoptions because the ''deal'' under which adoptions then went ahead was that the child was removed from one parent and given to another, with no contact between the two. Frequently, in those times, the children's first names were changed. The individuals who were adopted then as babies—there were many more baby adoptions then than there are today—and are now adults may not know who their natural parents were. Many hundreds, or even thousands of such people, might not even know that they were adopted. 
 I do not want to say that the system before 1975 was wrong for its time. Whether it was right or wrong, it changed at that time—I accept and support that. For that reason, I am as delighted as any of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches that the Government have seen sense and gone back, essentially, to the system that was adopted post-1975. However, children obviously have a right to know who their parents are and to have access to their birth certificates. It should be for the child to initiate contact with birth parents, not vice versa. The provisions need to be seen in the light of the further amendments.

Kevin Brennan: Can the hon. Gentleman not envisage that, in many cases, it may be a more favourable proposition for contact to be initiated by a birth relative, rather than by the adopted person? Plenty of research evidence shows that adopted people find it a difficult subject to raise with their adoptive parents and that in 90 per cent. or more of cases where contact is initiated by a birth relative, it is welcomed. Is he not ignoring the evidence?

Jonathan Djanogly: I do not think that there is evidence, as such, that says that. More to the point, the hon. Gentleman will see that, in amendment No. 191, my hon. Friends and I have gone some way to alleviating his concerns. His point is a fair one. The expression of the approach can often best be made by the natural
 parents—the amendment provides for that. Providing for an expression of the position of the natural parent towards contact is very different from making contact. That is the distinction that we need to make.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that there is any research evidence. I can provide him with it. Is he aware that research quoted in ''Adoption, Search and Reunion - The long Term Experience of Adopted Adults'' by Howe and Feast, published in 2000, showed that 90 per cent. of non-searching adopted people who are informed of a birth relative's inquiry agree to have some form of contact? Is he also aware that 74 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults did not feel comfortable asking their adoptive parents for information about their birth family and background?

Jonathan Djanogly: . I do not know how well the hon. Gentleman's statistics can be verified. Even if they are correct, that means that 10 per cent. would not want contact. That is a large enough proportion to support my view that the system under which they were adopted should not be changed in retrospect. The question of where we go from here is a different matter. We are considering contact provisions and I do not dispute that it is often appropriate to maintain contact. However, I am not talking about where we go from here and the Bill must take account of the historical position. We must respect the culture and provisions under which adoptions were previously carried out.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman says that the provisions would be unacceptable if 10 per cent. did not agree that contact was suitable, but the figure in the research is 6 per cent—a small minority. He talks about the culture of the past, but is he not in danger of setting it in stone? We should move on and accept that we are talking about human beings now, not then.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the relatively short period from the mid-1920s to 1976—from the creation of adoption until the introduction of new laws in the Adoption Act 1976, which we all support. That does not mean, however, that we can simply overturn the basis on which adoptions were made between 1926 and 1976. Rather, we must accept that adoptions were made on that basis. It is easy to say that someone in their 60s should be sent a letter saying that they were adopted, but we must take on board the implications for their state of mind and the potential need for counselling. We should not simply assume, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that they will accept the news. I do not accept that.

Hilton Dawson: I honestly cannot believe what I am hearing. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that we should accept the standards of a time when women who gave birth outside marriage were ostracised and sometimes put in mental asylums? The standards of that time and the rights that were accorded to women were far fewer than they are now. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we should accept those standards in the 21st century?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am not saying that those standards were right or that the basis for adoption was right, but we must respect as an historical fact that adoption was carried out in a particular way for a limited period. We cannot go backwards; we must go forwards, as the Bill does.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: No, it would be best if I moved on.
 It is important that information is given in two instances, which are reflected in other amendments. The first is the death of a child. From a humanitarian point of view, information should certainly be passed to the natural parents in such a case. They have no automatic right to information and they should be given one. Secondly, we shall promote a procedure whereby natural parents can provide the adoption agency with written information. In that way, a child who makes contact with the agency can receive the information and have some understanding of their natural family. However, it should be the child who has the right of approach and not the birth parents.

Jacqui Smith: The amendment would add a new subsection to clause 54 to ensure that a local authority would not be able to provide birth parents with any information relating to an adopted adult or child unless it did so under a contact order made under section 25. The amendment appears to suggest that the courts should authorise all exchanges of information concerning an adopted person.
 The first point to note is that the amendment applies only to local authorities. It would not cover adoptions arranged through registered adoption societies. More substantially, it would mark a considerable change from the current position by requiring the courts to regulate all exchanges of information of any sort concerning an adopted person. At present, adoption agencies have discretion under regulation 15 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 to disclose information for the purposes of their functions as an adoption agency, and the accompanying guidance makes it clear that agencies can use that discretion—for example, to give a birth parent information about a child's progress without disclosing his new identity or his whereabouts. The amendment would require a court order before that could take place. 
 The Government believe that it is right, subject to appropriate regulations and guidance, that adoption agencies should take the lead in planning and managing contact arrangements. The key principle here is that in considering arrangements for contact, links and the passing of information the central concern must at all times be what is in the interests of the child. Our national adoption standards and the accompanying draft practice guidance are emphatic on that point. Agencies must plan contact arrangements from the child's point of view, and discuss proposed arrangements fully with the prospective adopters and the birth family. The standards and the accompanying draft practice guidance also make it clear that agencies should 
 provide on-going support to adoptive parents and birth relatives in managing and maintaining contact arrangements that have been agreed in the interests of the child. 
 I do not think that the answer is to burden the courts with providing for every arrangement for the exchange of information concerning adoptions.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain new clause 7? It will not be possible for the Government to move it today as it is a starred amendment. What route do the Government intend to take on that issue?

Jacqui Smith: The amendment was starred because I was aware of the need to ensure that amendments were tabled in plenty of time; although we are unlikely to discuss them until after the Christmas holidays, all hon. Members would still have had plenty of time to consider the implications. Nevertheless, I shall outline in a moment how the proposed system should work and explain the distinction between the proposals in new clause 7(2) on providing information to adults and those in new clause 8 on providing information to children.
 As I said, the answer is not to burden the courts. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, there has been an increase in open adoptions, and that is set to continue. It may not be the intention, but the amendment could place a considerable burden on the courts—and on the affected parties, who would need to pay all the associated costs. In addition, a child's needs and wishes in respect of contact may change over time and, under the amendment, any substantial change would presumably require a further court order. 
 The Government's view is that the contact provisions under the Bill for children placed for adoption, or under the Children Act 1989 for contact with children once they have been adopted, should be used when it has not been possible to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement through the offices of the adoption agency, and not as a first resort. 
 On identifying information about adopted adults, again we acknowledge that it is important that the disclosure of such information is handled sensitively and that the views of the adopted person are sought whenever they can be found. That is why, as I set out earlier, we have tabled new clauses 7 and 8, providing for the disclosure of such information in a way that ensures that the adopted person's views are taken into account. Again, we believe that this is a task primarily for an adoption agency with the necessary skills and expertise operating within the proper framework of regulations and guidance, and not a task for the court. 
 In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, let me say that it is the intention in relation to new clauses 7 and 8 that the disclosure of identifying information about adults will operate as follows. On receipt of the request, the agency would make an initial decision about whether or not to proceed with the application. We anticipate that where the agency is not minded to proceed with the application, there would be access to the independent review mechanism. If it decided to 
 proceed, it would be under a duty to take all reasonable efforts to seek the views of the persons who would be identified and to establish their views, including whether they consented to the release of the information. 
 Once it has obtained the person's views, the agency must decide whether to disclose the information. Where there is consent, information will normally be disclosed, and the regulations and guidance will be slanted in that direction. However, the agency will be allowed to withhold the information when, for example, its direct contact with the applicant means that it has concerns about the disclosure of which the identified person was not aware. 
 As I outlined earlier to the hon. Gentleman, we anticipate providing access to the independent review where access is blocked in that manner. Where consent cannot be obtained, the agency will have the ability to release the information in appropriate circumstances. 
 A different approach is necessary to requests for information about a child. Although the process would be similar, we would not make it a condition that the agency had to approach the adoptive family. Where the agency decided to proceed, it would be under a duty to make all reasonable efforts to contact the adoptive parents to find out their views and establish whether they would consent. The agency can also seek the views of the child if it considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the child's age and understanding. 
 We will no doubt go into the matter in more detail when we discuss the new clauses. There will be a higher level of protection with regard to disclosing information about a child, certainly in terms of making contact for the purposes of seeking consent to disclose such information, than there will be in the case of an adult. The Government believe that to be appropriate. Where a request is made for information that could identify both a child and an adult, the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare, which is also included in new clause 8, must be applied to the decision. 
 I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some guidance on the Government's approach to the new clauses and that on that basis he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the Minister for that explanation. It was helpful, but not adequate. The position needs to be fleshed out, and the Minister admitted as much herself. I hope that, over the Christmas recess, the Government will think about how to do that.
 The Minister's point on the technicalities of the amendment placing further burdens on the courts was fair. However, that was not my actual point. When the amendment was tabled, it was intended to represent the elegant middle ground in contrast to the Government's brutal approach. I shall not pander to certain Labour Back-Benchers who want to make out that the amendment represents an unusual or nonsensical approach, because it makes more sense than their Government's approach.
 However, I appreciate that the ground has shifted and that new amendments have been tabled, although they are not available for debate today. The Minister referred to seeking the views of the child before contact. What if the child does not know that he or she is adopted before the views are sought? That should be considered. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to debate the following: New clause 5—Intermediary services—
 (1) Regulations may require adoption agencies to provide an intermediary service at the request of an adopted person, or a birth relative of an adopted person. 
 (2) Where the intermediary service is requested by a birth relative of an adopted person, the regulations may provide that the Adoption Agency shall use such information as is available to it to contact the adopted person, and notify them of the request of the birth relative to receive identifying information about the adopted person. 
 But regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) shall provide that information as to the identity of the adopted person shall only be given to the birth relative with the consent of the adopted person.'. 
Government new clause 6—Disclosing information during adoption process.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned the word ''lacuna'' and it was my view when I tabled new clause 5 that that word was applicable. There was a gap on access to information for birth parents. My new clause may be flawed and may not go far enough, but it is my view that birth parents whose children were adopted pre-1975 should have the right to obtain identifying information about their children. The new clause provides both the opportunity for debate on the issue and a statutory basis for birth relatives to have means of showing a desire to contact adopted persons when they reach adulthood. I welcome the Government's effort, in new clause 7, to deal with the issues to which I refer. We may need to cogitate further on the matter and digest it over the Christmas period, but I am glad that the gap has been recognised.
 Why do we need to legislate for intermediary services for birth relatives? We rehearsed some points earlier in interventions when the hon. Member for Huntingdon spoke to his amendment. First, there is a postcode lottery across the country as regards the provision of intermediary services from adoption agencies and local authorities. Whether those services are provided depends on where one lives. There is no requirement to provide those services but, as they are provided throughout the country to an increasing extent, it is right that they should appear in the Bill and have a statutory basis. 
 We need the reference to intermediary services to address past injustices. Every day in this country someone—usually an elderly woman—wakes up and thinks about the child that she gave up many years ago 
 for adoption. Prior to 1975, many birth mothers gave up their children when they felt that they had no choice, because they lived in a very different society from the one in which we live today. Many still consider that they were pressurised into the decision and have had to live with it throughout their lives. In considering this aspect of the Bill, we should consider their position and show some humanity in debating it. All people affected by adoption must be given opportunities to access knowledge and exchange information with the appropriate consent. Birth parents should at least be able to express the desire to do so. 
 The research shows clearly that 90 per cent. of non-searching adoptive people who are informed of the birth relatives' inquiry agree to have some form of contact. Only 6 per cent. do not agree that adopted adults should be informed of a birth relative's interest. Apparently, 75 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults have never even heard of the adoption contact register, while 74 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults did not feel comfortable asking their adoptive parents for information about their birth family and background. One does not need a great deal of imagination to understand the clear benefits in allowing birth relatives to initiate that contact. 
 Research also states that 80 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults thought about their birth parents while they were growing up, and 80 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults said that the contact with a birth relative answered important questions about their origins and background. Five years after the first contact was made, 55 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults were still in contact with their birth relatives. That is a human success story on which we should build. Statistics are only statistics, but behind them are real human stories that we should consider when we debate the Bill. 
 I referred to a constituent of mine who believes, rightly or wrongly, that her adopted child was abused by her birth mother when in fact the abuse took place when the child was in the care of the local authority and the child received criminal compensation. The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to cases when disclosure of information may have had a catastrophic effect on an adopted child, and I accept that the example that he gave of a 15-year-old girl from his constituency fell into that category. However, I am proposing not to enable such cases to occur but to allow birth parents the right at least to signal their desire to contact adopted persons in adulthood. I do not propose that they should be able to do that while the adopted child is growing up or going through a difficult development after, perhaps, a difficult adoption. 
 I can cite cases to counter that given by the hon. Gentleman. The Children's Society gave me some information on the matter. I withhold from criticising the society's decision to withdraw from its work in Wales, because it does good work in general. It 
 provided an example of a young man called Anthony, whose adoptive parents contacted the society when he was 17 years old, because he wanted access to information. They were told at that time that Anthony could not receive the information until he was 18 years old. A few years later, when nothing happened with his case, he committed suicide. Afterwards, the Children's Society realised that Anthony's birth parents had contacted the society when he was 15 to say that they were interested in his progress and would like to know more about him, and would like him to know that they were interested in his progress. I am not saying that that was the cause of his suicide, as these matters are complicated, but my proposals address that kind of dysfunction and misunderstanding. 
 I refer, too, to the case of George who, in 1994, wanted background information about his origins, which were held on the Children's Society's adoption records. He thought that he might begin a search for his birth mother. She had written to the society three years earlier to say that she would be pleased to hear from him, but the letter was received when the Children's Society did not have the proactive policy that I propose. When George found out about the letter, he was delighted that his mother had written; through the Children's Society, he contacted the last known address, sadly to discover that his birth mother had died six months earlier. We should try to avoid those scenarios and legislate against the possibility of them happening. 
 I shall mention one other case, of someone who takes close interest in the Bill. In fact, without wishing to breach protocol, I can say that Irene takes very close interest in our proceedings today. She is a birth mother aged 76, who tried to locate her daughter, Anna, whom she had relinquished for adoption 50 years ago. The agency that held the adoption records did not provide intermediary services for birth relatives. Her search lasted for more than 10 years. Eventually the information was obtained and Irene learned that her daughter had died 39 years ago, aged 11. She had to rebuild her hopes and dreams in the light of that information, but for 10 years she had been left looking for it. It should have been provided to her much earlier. I recognise that Opposition Members have also acknowledged that such cases should not continue to occur. 
 Several times in our sittings, the hon. Member for Huntingdon has spoken about a pre-1975 deal that would be broken if we allowed birth parents access to information or if we permitted them actively to signal to adopted persons in adulthood that they wanted to contact them. That deal has already been broken. It was broken when adopted persons were given the right to seek identifying information about themselves and to find their origins. In addition, the hon. Gentleman's objection ignores the changes that have happened in society. I do not know whether he has seen the fine British feature film, directed by Mike Leigh, called ''Secrets and Lies'', but his attitude perpetuates the culture of secrets and lies. We should be trying to get away from that in legislating for adoption in this day and age. I hope that he will rethink his position over 
 Christmas and return, suitably reformed—[Interruption.]—or modernised, if hon. Members prefer to say that. 
 I think that hon. Members have received copies of the personal statement of Pam Hodgkins MBE, the founder of NORCAP. In that statement, remembering the time when she began her work, she says: 
 ''I naively believed that the adopted person had no voice in the original proceedings whilst the birth mother had made a choice. I therefore considered that the balance of the law from the 1976 Act was correct. I quickly learned that whilst the adopted person had no voice fear, shame and the pressure of family and society silenced the voice of birth mothers.'' 
It is for that very reason that many Commonwealth countries, following the lead taken in the 1976 Act, dealt with the matter of birth parents receiving information. Pam Hodgkins says: 
 ''I was also learning from my practice that there were benefits to all parties when a birth relative was the person offering renewed communication . . . Everything demonstrates the need for change I am advocating now. There is no evidence whatsoever that making these changes would be problematic or harmful. The aged birth relatives uppermost in my mind are mothers in their 70s and 80s who parted with babies who are now 30 to 60 years old and the siblings of the babies adopted in the war years and beyond.'' 
Without the changes for which I argue, the Bill will uphold a dubious principle and perpetuate a cruel and unusual punishment—the psychological punishment of a life sentence of uncertainty about what happened to one's child. We should bring to an end that injustice, before it is too late for the generation who gave up their children.

Hilton Dawson: I rise to support my hon. Friend's excellent speech. His pursuit of the issue through Second Reading and Committee has been notable. It would be a considerable tribute to my hon. Friend if the Government tabled a new clause to deal with this important adoption issue. He has swept the legs from under those who want to argue that new Labour is full of drones, in thrall to the Whips and at the mercy of Ministers. He has told us that the Committee is the first on which he has served and what he has done on it is a model of parliamentary work.

Jonathan R Shaw: Perhaps I can drone for a while. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said that parents often felt pressurised to give up their children. Does he agree that many of them were deceived about what happened to those children? I am thinking especially of child migrants. Between the war and 1967, 10,000 children were shipped to parts of the former empire and the parents were never told what happened to them. Many parents believed that those children were put up for adoption. The sands of time are running out and those people would welcome new regulations.

Hilton Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I would never use a cliche such as ''the sands of time''. New clause 5 is about reparation—undoing some of the wrongs of the care system. The Government are changing the care system dramatically and we have an opportunity to right wrongs that have been perpetrated in the past.
 If we establish mediation systems through new clause 5 or other provisions, I hope that they will not be needed for many decades. I sincerely hope that the adoption system that the Bill will set up will be open to easy access and full of tremendous knowledge and information. I hope that people will not go through the deceptions, lack of information, secrecy and iniquity that has been present in adoption in the past and that we have a much better, freer and more civilised adoption system. That is plainly needed now. 
 We cannot say that the rights of birth parents are the same as those of people who have been adopted. I was surprised to hear Professor Triseliotis attempt to strike a balance between the two, because the balance of power needs to be with the person who was adopted. The contribution from that eminent person was otherwise tremendous.

Meg Munn: On that point, does my hon. Friend accept that the quality of the intermediary services will be to recognise that the balance should be with the child, but to enable contact to take place when it is welcomed? Thereby, it will meet the needs of all those involved.

Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend exemplifies the point that we both tried to make this morning. The process is not bureaucratic, but skilful, careful, intuitive and very human.
 I do not want to say more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has said everything important. If his new clause is not acceptable for technical or drafting reasons, I sincerely hope that everyone will support the proposals that the Government will eventually make under the clause and, in the process, ensure that the Bill is tremendously improved.

Jacqui Smith: I shall deal with the issues raised in relation to new clause 5 and then to introduce Government new clause 6.
 On new clause 5, there is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West made a powerful contribution to our discussion and highlighted, as have other hon. Members, the fact that the provision of intermediary services to birth relatives who wish to contact an adopted adult is a complex area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre outlined, it may not be possible to lay down cast-iron rights, especially for birth parents, although I appreciate that that is not proposed in new clause 5. 
 The Government understand the need of birth parents to know how the lives of their children have progressed. For that reason, we would like agencies to take a positive and compassionate view towards the approaches of birth relatives who wish to trace people from whom they were separated. Last year, with the assistance of the Children's Society, the Government produced good practice guidance on intermediary services for birth relatives. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) concluded the forward by saying
 ''I would expect an agency's response to a request for intermediary services from a birth relative to be sympathetic and as helpful as possible.'' 
However, in doing so, adoption agencies must carefully consider and balance the needs of all parties concerned. In particular, they must take account of an adopted person's rights to privacy and to protect the family life created through adoption. 
 The provision of intermediary services to adopted adults wishing to contact a birth relative is an equally complex area. There are many cases—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has ably outlined the examples—where people want help to trace a relative, but others feel strongly that the relative should not be traced or contacted. I have spoken to two people who were adopted between the periods mentioned by my hon. Friend, who said that they would not want to be contacted by their birth parents. One may or may not agree, but we must recognise that some people hold that view, even if they are in a minority. 
 In the light of conflicting views about intermediary services, it is important to think carefully about what role they should play. My hon. Friend made a powerful argument for the role of intermediary services as part of the adoption support framework that the Government intend to implement. Intermediary services are a support service like other services such as counselling and support groups. As we explored when we discussed clause 3, we have expanded the provisions to ensure that local authorities will have a duty to provide adoption support services and not just for adopted children and their families. As we develop the new framework for adoption support services, it will be possible to consider the provision of intermediary services as part of the debate on the context of that framework and also the provisions of all other forms of adoption support. If, following that consultation, we decide that it would be appropriate to require all local authorities to make arrangements to put intermediary services in place as part of their adoption service, we could make regulations requiring them to do so. To that extent, the new clause is unnecessary, although it has enabled the hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns. 
 One other important point about the adoption support framework, is that it will enable us to provide support for those adoptions that took place before the provisions of the Bill were implemented. Hon. Members have said, as I have, that the Government new clauses could allow a more proactive approach in ensuring opportunities for contact and the passing of information between adopted adults and their birth relatives; but those provisions will apply to adoptions taking place after the Bill is passed. We have scope within the adoption support provisions to deal with adoptions that happened before the Bill was passed, and for provisions on the disclosure of information after the Bill is passed, which we shall debate later in more detail. 
 I hope that my hon. Friend realises that I have sympathy with his views, although I would not go as far as him in seeing it as an absolute right. It is one of 
 those extremely difficult and sensitive areas and it highlights the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. It is not about a bureaucratic process or about rights; it is about providing support that enables appropriate contacts to be made. We shall be able to consider that as we take forward the adoption support framework. 
 Government new clause 6 is designed to respond to the concerns expressed by a number of witnesses during the Committee's evidence sittings about the crucial importance of adopters receiving full and appropriate information about a child during the matching process, and to support the adoptive placement well in advance of the adoption order. A number of witnesses felt that the Bill did not address that clearly enough. They said that the provisions of clause 57 on the providing of information following the adoption order did not spell out the entitlement clearly and that it caused a misunderstanding about what the Government intended to be provided to prospective adopters. 
 The Government entirely agree that it is crucial that adopters receive full information during matching and to help the placement succeed. Under regulation 12 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983, after making a decision following a panel hearing that a prospective adopter would be a suitable adoptive parent for a particular child, adoption agencies are required to provide written information to the prospective adopter that sets out the child's personal history and background, including his cultural and religious background, his health history and his current state of health, together with the agency's written proposals in respect of the placement. 
 Our national standards underpin that by making it clear that, before a match is agreed, adopters should be given full written information to help them understand the needs and background of the child and an opportunity to discuss that and the implications for them and their family. It has always been our intention to use the various regulation-making powers under the Bill to provide for that, but in light of what has been said, we think it would be appropriate to amend the Bill to make our intention clear. That is why the amendment removes clause 57. The new clause therefore makes clear that the general regulation-making power under clause 9 may be used to set out the key stages at which adoption agencies are to provide information to prospective adopters and the information that they will be obliged to provide. 
 As is set out in my letter to the Committee, the Government intend to use that power to make regulations to ensure that a fully comprehensive package of background information should be made available at three stages: where a match is being considered, once a match has been approved and in preparing for the placement of the child. 
 Let me spell out what we envisage will be included at those three stages. At the linking stage, when the prospective adopters are first visited by the child's social worker and the adoption social worker, there will be a summary report on the child. That will provide information on the child's appearance and 
 family circumstances, the part played in his life by his birth parents, his home environment, why he had been taken into care or given up for adoption, his behaviour, how he interacts with other children and relates to adults and his current care status. It should not contain identifying information about anyone other than the child, and the adopters will be asked to agree to keep the information confidential. 
 At the second stage, after the matching recommendation by the adoption and the decision by the agency decision maker, there will be a full matching report on the child. That will provide the prospective adopters with all the information that they need to decide whether to go ahead with the match. It will include a full description of the child's history, personality and behaviour and of his needs, problems and progress at school and in care. It will be supported by medical, psychiatric, psychological and educational information. The adopters will, again, be asked to agree to keep that information confidential. 
 If the prospective adopters, having had the time to consider the full matching report, wish to proceed to the preparations for the placement, they will be provided with a written proposal setting out the terms for the placement. That will include details of proposed financial and other support arrangements and of any agreement about contact arrangements. If the child's birth family agrees in writing, life story books, which could include birth certificates, photo albums and other identifying information such as family trees may be passed to the prospective adopters, who will be asked to sign a further undertaking to keep the identifying information confidential. 
 We intend to consult again with stakeholders in the adoption field to ensure that the regulations and guidance set out an appropriately full range of information to help adopters successfully to care for the child. We shall also ensure through regulations and guidance that, where appropriate, adoption agencies pass on to adopters any relevant information that they obtain after the adoption order has been made. 
 I hope that Government new clause 6 allays the concern—although unfounded—that was properly represented and expressed at the evidence-gathering sitting, that the Government had not made clear their expectations in relation to the information to be provided for prospective adopters. That is our reason for having tabled new clause 6 and I commend it to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Disclosure of other information

Amendment made: No. 200, in page 32, line 23, leave out 'or section 76 information'.—[Jacqui Smith]

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 32, line 23, at end insert—
 'Where an adoption agency which has carried out functions in respect of an adopted person is made aware of the death of that adopted person, it shall have a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform the natural parents of that adopted person of that person's death'.
 This is very straightforward and I hope that it is not contentious. We have debated at length the disclosure of information to birth parents and will, I am sure, return to it. The amendment tackles a matter that arose during the evidence-gathering sitting by making an addition to clause 55 to the effect that if an adoption agency that has acted for an adopted person has been 
 ''made aware of the death of that adopted person, it shall have a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform the natural parents of that adopted person of that person's death''. 
Contentious issues arise as to what information should be made available to birth relatives and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West eloquently made a strong case. I agreed with much of what he said and disagreed with part of it, but his points were well made. The Minister acknowledged that the issue was sensitive and we are dealing with cases that go back many years. I hope that a better system will come from our deliberations, but the issues must be handled sensibly. 
 However, the point with which the amendment deals is perfectly reasonable and above contention and it was raised in the Committee's witness stages. Birth parents surely have a right to know whether a birth child whom they gave up for adoption is still alive. We can envisage various scenarios. A birth parent who gave a child up for adoption 20, 30 or 40 years ago may decide to seek contact at a late stage or at least to seek information about the child's well-being without making contact. A birth parent may have given up a child in difficult circumstances many years ago, not of their own volition, because they were under pressure. They may genuinely want to seek information about their child and it would be a cruel trick if they found out, after a good deal of effort and investigation, that the child had died some years previously and that all their work, hopes and expectations were completely in vain. 
 We can continue to debate what other information should be available to birth parents who are actively seeking a child who is still alive. At the very least, however—we are not talking about an absolute compulsion—adoption agencies should make all reasonable efforts to inform the birth parents that the adopted child has passed away. That is reasonable and humane and I doubt whether most members of the Committee would disagree with the thrust of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able, to coin a phrase, to adopt it, even if she has some criticism of the way in which it is phrased.

Jacqui Smith: I have some sympathy with the amendment, although there are problems with it. It would place a statutory duty on an adoption agency that had carried out any function in respect of an adopted person to make reasonable efforts to inform the birth parents where it was aware that that person had died. The reference to an adopted person in respect of whom the agency has carried out any
 function would give the amendment a very broad scope. It could, for example, apply where an agency had placed a child for adoption or, in the case of a non-agency placement, notified of the intention to adopt.
 As I said, I sympathise with the humane intentions behind the amendment. We all understand why it would be right for the birth family to know about the death of the adopted person, especially as we would want that distressing information to be passed on with care and consideration for their feelings. The national adoption standards state that where adoptive parents have agreed to inform the agency of the death of the adopted child, birth parents, or the next of kin will, if they wish, be informed by the adoption agency. I am pleased that the amendment does not go so far as to place a responsibility on to adoptive parents to inform the adoption agency if their adopted child should die. That would place a considerable pressure on adoptive parents at a very distressing time. 
 The amendment appears to be similar to schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, which places an obligation on local authorities, when a child in their care dies, to notify, so far as reasonably practical, the child's parents and every person who has parental responsibility for them. In such a case the local authority would have direct responsibility for the care of that particular child. It is a slightly different situation with an adoption agency, which would not have that direct caring responsibility. 
 However, a similar duty might be placed on adoption agencies where they become aware of the death of the adopted person, under the powers in clause 9. As I suggested earlier, we would want to prescribe the way in which the agencies should carry this out, ensuring that they would not actively seek the information but would act only on information passed to them by the adoptive family. I am prepared to consider that and to consult adoption stakeholders about an appropriate way forward. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: That is good news. I thought that the Minister was toying with my emotions when, having said that she had some sympathy with the amendment, she then said that she some problems with it. That is how she always balances her retorts. She appears to want to give some power of veto to the adoptive parents on the availability of the information. I do not
 agree that such a power should be given to them. It is a basic human kindness that such information should be made available. I am heartened, though, by the Minister's comments that she is prepared to reconsider the matter. On that basis, we can hopefully look forward to something on Report.
 I appreciate that the amendment may be drawn too widely. I am sure that that is easily remedied in terms of which adoption agencies will be involved in the responsibility. The amendment imposes a responsibility, not an outright duty. We are trying not to make things too onerous for adoption agencies. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will produce a more reasonably worded version of the clause on Report. The principle is right and necessary. It is a basic right of all people involved in adoption. On the basis of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 201, in page 32, line 29, leave out subsection (4).

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 202.

Jacqui Smith: Amendment No. 201 removes subsection (4) of clause 55, which provides for information about a child to be disclosed to prospective adopters if it has been prescribed for that purpose. The subsection is to be removed as a consequence of a new clause we have introduced specifically to deal with the passing on of information to prospective adopters. It is no longer required, due to the provisions that new clause 6 includes in the Bill.
 Amendment No. 202 is a minor consequential amendment to remove from clause 56 the reference to clause 55(4). If amendment No. 201 is agreed to, that subsection will be omitted from clause 55. With that clear explanation, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 10 January at half-past Nine o'clock.